Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Tim Peters]

[Guido]
> I don't think that we agreed to release 2.0 with the same style
> of license.
>
> But either way, 2.0 would be subject to the 1.6 license because it is
> a derivative work.

[Greg Ewing]
> Which, according to what we've seen of the 1.6 license,
> effectively means that the 2.0 license has to include
> all the 1.6 license terms, and maybe some of the exact
> wording as well.

See the License file from the 1.6b1 tarball for a taste of the future.  2.0
will include the 1.6 license verbatim, moved down a section, and possibly
add the BSD license to the top of the file (that isn't certain, but then
nothing about 2.0's license is completely settled at this point).

> Would it be feasible to fork 2.0 from whatever was the
> last version released under the old license? How much
> would have to be redone?

Greg, you have to get out of the house more often.  It's not that simple,
but I leave it to DejaNews to save us all yet another repeat of this
convoluted tale.

or-you-could-ask-cnri-ly y'rs  - tim